Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Walmart has denied that it is changing its policy, even temporarily, on the re-stocking of ammunition. This is according to a WND report. From that article:

“That information is inaccurate,” said Ashley Hardie, a spokeswoman located at Walmart’s corporate headquarters in Bentonville, Ark.

WND then asked whether the retail chain is cutting back on orders of ammunition.

“No,” Hardie said. “We’re continuing to serve our customers as we have in the past.”

She said Walmart’s ammunition sales policy has not changed, even amid talk of gun-control legislation in Washington, D.C.

WND is also reporting that CNSNews, the source of yesterday’s viral story, has in fact pulled the article at this hour. On the other hand, as WND further reports, they had the following information from people not connected with the original story on which Monday’s CNSNews article had been based:

Meanwhile, WND reader Sam Singleton said his local Walmart in Myrtle Beach, S.C., has a very short supply of ammunition. According to Singleton, the store claimed it had received a letter from corporate headquarters on the issue.

“The clerk said they only had what was left on the shelf and that there was a ‘hard lock’ on the reorders. She said they hadn’t been getting any replenishment and that just today the store had received a letter from the corporate office stating that they would not be able to order any replenishment of ammunition, other than some for shotguns.

“She said they were not stocking anything that could be used in an ‘assault-type rifle.’ I said, ‘This is ammunition I use for practice,’ and she said they were just told there was a ‘hard lock’ on ammo sales.”

Another WND reader, Patrick Clemons, reported a similar experience today after he visited the Walmart in Folsom, Calif.

This is all very curious. If we are to believe Walmart’s denials, then it’s hard to square with the reports from various people independently reporting very similar things. Either there is a massive conspiracy to “get Walmart” or there’s a cover-up under way. At any rate, as of this update, Walmart says it’s not true.

Barack Obama and the forces of the left want to deprive me of my rights. Naturally, they want to strip you of your as well. In that sense, let us admit that they are equal opportunity despots. There’s a problem, however, and it’s simply this: I have committed no crime and no tort, and I have harmed no other living person, and after nearly half a century on the planet, and with nearly thirty years bearing arms, both privately and on behalf of my country, there are no innocent victims littering a bloody trail behind me. Obama and his minions would have you believe that their intention is to reduce gun violence, but that’s simply not true. The real intention is to punish the innocent, and to reward the guilty, but decent Americans who abide the law should have the clarity of conscience to reject the charge and to demand that the Obama administration prove our guilt before depriving us of our liberties. You see, that’s how it is supposed to work: The Constitution accords us each due process of law before our rights may be suspended, violated or infringed. Rather than confront the real problem, the gun-grabbers are building sentiment for punishing the innocent in lieu of the guilty.

There is no such notion in American law as a collectivized guilt to be shared between the innocent as well as the guilty. Both our civil and criminal legal systems are based in individualized concepts of justice. The Fifth Amendment as well as the Second guarantee that neither Obama nor Congress can take our guns simply because they concoct a figment of law in order to compel you. The Fifth Amendment’s text explains the context in which your rights may be suspended or violated:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.“(Emphasis added)

The relevant portions of this amendment make it plain that I am entitled to due process of law, and that due process is every bit as much an individual right as any other guaranteed by the constitution, although the government has gotten in the habit of pretending otherwise. I have a right to my arms, to bear them, and to maintain them in perpetuity without governmental interference, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. So long as that Amendment remains in force, in order to strip me of that right, the government must first accuse me of a crime, convince a jury of my guilt, and sentence me accordingly. I have the right to have my day in court, present a defense, and provide exculpatory evidence on my behalf. Leftists like to pretend that when Congress passes a law and the President signs it, or he enacts new regulations or dicta, this is all the due process to which individuals are entitled, but this is not the case particularly when we are talking about rights explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. The due process clause clearly applies to individuals. The text makes that fact plain, since it is written with a singular pronoun: In describing the “person” who shall have due process of law, it says: “himself.” One needn’t be a constitutional attorney or a Supreme Court justice to recognize the plain language of the constitution and to understand its meaning.

On this basis, I wish then to know when each of us will be charged in some manner, according to some law, on the basis of which Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and their host of Marxist brethren will present indictments against each of us. I want to know the charges against me. I want to know what is my alleged guilt so that I may be deprived of my explicit liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution. Passing a law to outlaw this gun or that magazine, subsequently accusing me of violating it, does not pass the constitutional stricture against post facto law, in the first instance, nor is such a law an individualized process. It is instead mass punishment. Mass punishment of any sort violates all the principles of the constitution, and yet what Obama and his goons would have you believe is that we must be deprived of so-called “Assault Weapons” on the basis of a collective guilt for the actions of a few criminals who have committed horrendous acts, to which we have no relationship.

Still others like Governor Cuomo pretend that the number of rounds we can have ought to be limited, but as one combat veteran explained to me when I was a young private in the Army, “You won’t know how much ammunition you’ll need until the firefight is over.” This is undeniably true, and I was reminded of it when a caller to Mark Levin’s show made much the same point. You don’t know how many bad guys you’ll face, or how they will be armed. Andrew Cuomo screaming at the top of his lungs about whether hunters have a legitimate need for magazines that hold more than ten rounds is a farce, because the Second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. Do hunters enjoy the protections of the Second Amendment? Certainly, but they are not the object of the Second Amendment, otherwise we would see an amendment elsewhere defining a “right to hunt.” This illusion the gun-grabbers want you to stumble over is a nonsensical argument because the founders did not enshrine the right to keep and bear arms in the US Constitution so their heirs could shoot deer, or wild turkeys, or ducks. They ratified it as a protection against governmental tyranny.

Now we are confronted with a President who wishes to deprive us of our right to keep and bear arms. He presents no charges against any of us, and he offers no evidence in substantiation of the non-existent charges. Instead, he plans to act with despotic discretion in the matter. I have been charged with no crime, and knowing the character of my average reader, they haven’t been charged with a crime, yet this President intends to punish us just as surely as any convicted felon in acting to deprive us of our rights. This is the sort of thing one sees in any growing tyranny, where laws and dicta are written to prevent crimes that may well never be committed by people who may well never have conceived of committing them. Vice President Biden offered that if so few as one life is saved by the actions they will take, it will have been worth it. If that is now to be the argument in favor of banning guns, let us apply it equally to every issue. How many lives will be needlessly ended under Obamacare? How many children are aborted each day? How many doctors make errors each day? How many people are killed in motor vehicle accidents, or are trampled by cattle, or are struck by lightning? Using such a fraudulent rationale, one must construct an endless list of things to be banned.

We must ban knives because if only one life is saved, it is worth it. We must ban doctors, because if even one life is saved, we have done something heroic. We must ban cars altogether, because if even one life is saved… We can go on ad nauseum, but ultimately, what the left will reveal if they don’t know you’re paying attention is that if it were up to them, they would ban people. The left now enacts laws, and too often, the so-called moderate Republicans go along, and the object of these laws is inevitably to punish you for being alive. If you use gasoline, you must be punished. If you use paper, you must be punished. If you use water, air, or anything at all, you must be punished. Only when you are reduced to the level of a slave does the punishment diminish in its frequency and severity.

The entire argument being advanced by leftists is that all we who own weapons are guilty each and every time some lunatic commits a heinous act of violence against his fellow men. It’s largely based on a fear-mongering argument contrived to make people believe that there is something inherently evil about the instrument, and therefore necessarily evil about all those who would possess them. This is roughly as sensible an argument as the idea that because some people drive drunk, we should therefore do away with the motor vehicle, or because some Islamic supremacist nuts flew four airplanes into buildings and a fourth into the ground, jetliners should now be banned in the name of the public safety. By this sort of disconnected anti-reasoning, we should blame Wilbur and Orville Wright for 9/11.

I reject such reasoning, as I reject the authority of all those who would advance it. Law-abiding Americans are not even distantly responsible for the actions of the shooters who perpetrate these crimes, any more than they are responsible for the hundreds of murders on the streets of Chicago. Taking away my guns or the guns of other law-abiding Americans will do nothing to reduce the actions of murderous predators, but more than that, nobody has made a valid charge against them. What is being done in this instance is a travesty, with leftist activists making sure the crisis presented by the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut doesn’t “go to waste.” Americans should incensed at the notion that the actions of a handful of monsters somehow conveys guilt upon the rest of us, yet that is the basis of the emotionalized appeal being pushed by the anti-Second Amendment crowd.

The left pretends to adore the first Amendment, particularly those parts pertaining to freedom of speech, yet they would insist, one mustn’t permit people to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, and to that extent we are able to agree. For reasons entirely their own, they are unable to see that in order to prevent the yelling of “fire” in a crowded theater, we do not gag people before they enter. We do not place this prior restraint upon speech because there is a presumption of innocence, and yet this is precisely the thing they refuse to presume on the part of law-abiding citizens who own guns. Just as with the First Amendment, we do not punish or impede people in advance, but instead seek justice when they commit such a crime, so should it be for every other right of free people that might be abused. I will not accept a guilt I had not earned, and neither should any other American.

It is for these reasons that I have resolved that neither Barack Obama nor future politicians shall be permitted to have my guns. If they insist, I will resist them, and they will be compelled to choose whether to murder me, or to relent in their outrageous punishment levied against a man who is peaceful, and who had committed no crime, or otherwise harmed another soul. Benjamin Franklin had wanted the Great Seal of the United States to include the motto: “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” If we are to be confronted with tyrants, may we be faithfully obedient to Franklin’s proposition.

One of the things that causes me the most consternation about the entire argument over gun control is how so many people who express opinions on the matter exhibit a complete lack of knowledge on the instruments at the center of the discussion. More, it’s frustrating to realize that among all the voices chiming-in, there are a great number who have no idea why it is that we have the Second Amendment, or what all the fuss is about. To them, it’s a simple matter: Collect up all the guns and the problem is solved. Sadly, simplistic views like this aren’t very likely to bear fruit, and there is good reason to be skeptical about those who express them. After all, before launching into a tirade against guns, or anything else for that matter, one ought to know a bit about the subject matter, but it seems to have become the fashion in America to speak with conviction on issues about which one may know precisely nothing. This article is an attempt to lift the veil of ignorance that seems to shroud so much of the public discourse, and while my readers may know much of this material, I have no doubt but that there are millions who might benefit from the information contained.

The first thing that every person ought to know about guns is that many things have been mislabeled by politicians so as to more easily sway the ignorant. Understanding what is and what isn’t true about guns first requires learning what they are, how they function, and what the different types of guns are, as well as their uses. One often hears politicians talking about “fully automatic” weapons. This is by itself a misnomer, because I’ve not seen a weapons system that is fully automatic outside of military applications, for instance like the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System used in our Navy. That is a system that once turned on, automatically aims and fire projectiles at targets without any further human intervention. You would not be able to contain one of these even in a fairly large garage, so let’s dispense with the nonsense about “fully automatic weapons.”

In practical terms, however, when most people talk about fully automatic weapons, what they are describing is a gun that will continue to fire one cartridge after the next by merely squeezing and holding the trigger. I am always perplexed when media outlets describe a shooting with a semi-automatic weapon as “spraying the room with bullets,” since “spraying” implies a continuous stream. If the trigger is being re-pulled with each round, there is no “spraying” involved. “Peppering” is a better descriptor, but naturally, the media blows everything out of proportion. They may share an anti-gun agenda, but I believe another explanation is that most people in the media are equally ignorant about guns. Only with automatic weapons is something remotely like “spraying” possible. Automatics are very rare in fact, and have been strictly licensed for decades. There is a great deal of paperwork and taxation and licensing fees involved in maintaining an automatic weapon.

In stark contrast, what is generally regarded as a semi-automatic weapon requires an additional pull of the trigger for each round to be sent down-range. The confusion arises because there are any number of guns that look just like their automatic cousins, but are instead purely semi-automatic weapons. What most people know as the AR-15 is simply the semi-automatic cousin of the fully automatic M-16 rifle, first tested and fielded by the Army in the 1960s. This family of rifles has been through several stages of development, and there’s no denying that they even share many common parts, but I can most thoroughly assure readers that an off-the-shelf AR-15 is not an automatic, and is not capable of “spraying” anything in the sense of a fully automatic M-16. An M-16 has a maximum cyclic rate of around 700 rounds per minute. This assumes you could feed it a continuous stream of ammunition, and that the barrel would not bow like a banana from the heat well before a full minute had elapsed.

A semi-automatic is in fact a self-loader, or an auto-loader, in that when you squeeze off one round, the rifle will by a combination of spent propellant gases and mechanical action eject the spent cartridge and reload the next round, provided one is available. One must release and again squeeze the trigger to fire the next round and send it down range. Military rifles like the M-16 have a select-fire feature that permits the user to place the weapon in automatic or semi-automatic mode. Civilian rifles like the AR-15 do not have the automatic setting, and can only fire in semi-automatic mode.

The same thing is true of the much-discussed AK-47. There are as many versions of this rifle in the world as there are manufacturers, plus some, but those legally imported into the US are all of the semi-automatic variety. In fact, while it is theoretically possible to convert many of these rifles to fully automatic function, the jail time one would incur for having done so is hardly worth the trouble of modifying one, and depending on which model and so forth, you may have some substantial but delicate machining ahead of you. It’s simply not worth it, either in terms of any perceived benefit, or in terms of the probable criminal liabilities. In all the hundreds upon hundreds of gun-owners I know and have known, I’ve never known so much as one willing to entertain the idea. We rational gun-owners enjoy our right to keep and bear arms far too much to put it all at risk over something so foolishly wasteful.

One of the questions I am asked by people who aren’t aware of the reasons for the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban” of 1994 given the differences in function between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon is why it was that such weapons were ever banned at all. The answer is purely political. So-called “Assault Weapons” merely look menacing, and as we should all know by now, politics is frequently all about perceptions. If you want proof, consider one of the features banned in that law: The Bayonet Lug. A bayonet lug is a machined block or other appendage on a rifle that permits the mounting of a bayonet. I have never heard of a single person committing a crime with a bayonet attached to an “assault rifle,” and yet we are told that this is a feature that makes them more dangerous. I don’t have any statistics to back this up, but given what I know about the world in which I live, I am willing to bet that more people are killed by meteorites hitting them in the head than have been killed by a madman with a fixed bayonet.

Since this is the case, one must ask what rational purpose there is to this classification of so-called “assault weapons.” The answer is that all of the criteria are purely cosmetic. Much is made of the question of magazine capacity, but frankly, this is a lot of steam. Take your average Glock 17, a weapon that is fairly common, and sadly has been used in a number of the high profile crimes of which we’re all aware. There are those who, apart from simply calling for an outright ban, want to restrict the number of rounds one can store in a magazine to just ten. I say “just 10,” but 10 shots are plenty in the hands of a practiced shooter, because if you’ll head over to Youtube, you can watch videos of competitive shooters who are able to change magazines and resume fire in less than one second. In other words, any perceived hitch in reload time is very minimal for somebody who is well-practiced. On the other hand, for those less-experienced shooters who may simply be trying to fend off some home-invader(s,) a magazine change could take several seconds, costing them time and permitting the assailant(s) to close the ground between them. Having a higher-capacity magazine is a distinct advantage for the less-than-expert home-defender, because having nearly twice the rounds on tap probably increases their chance of successfully defending their home particularly against multiple assailants.

The point is, however, that with practice, the difference between two ten-round magazines and one seventeen-round magazine is negligible. Some will ask: “But what about Assault Rifles? Surely their magazines cannot be changed so quickly!” Really? Try this video. As you can plainly see, magazine changes, no matter how frequent, are of little consequence to somebody trained to shoot. There are those who will say “But that proves our point about semi-automatics.” Not really. Watch this gentleman firing and reloading his revolver. As you can see, there’s nothing about this that would suggest that some of the most horrific shootings we’ve witnessed over the years would have been even slightly different in terms of the results by eliminating semi-automatics. Perhaps this will lead you to believe that I’ve made the case against all semi-automatics, but before you jump to conclusions, take a look at this video of a seventy year-old bolt-action rifle.

What nobody seems willing to discuss is how often firearms are used in the defense of innocence against the insane or malignant people who manage to get their hands on them. In one recent case, an off-duty Sheriff’s Deputy in San Antonio, TX prevented what could well have turned into another theater shooting by engaging a suspect who ran into a theater shooting. This story received virtually no press coverage, but once again, what is demonstrated is how guns can and are frequently the instruments of salvation for the innocent. Just days ago, a woman in Georgia shot an intruder who had broken into her home. She hid with her children in the crawl-space, but when the thug came into view, she unloaded on him. There won’t be a widespread push to get this into widespread circulation, either.

Just as our society is beginning to break down, and you may find yourself more frequently needing the defensive capacity of firearms, the Obama administration is trying to fast-track legislation to ban them. This is another example of how the emotions of Americans are used against them by shrewd politicians who take advantage routinely of crises to advance what is nothing more than a political agenda. It does nothing to change the reality that there are some sick and evil people who will make use of whatever weapon is available to do some of the most horrific things. As Charles Krauthammer recently explained on FoxNews, the real problem is that we have made it nearly impossible to get a troubled person committed for psychiatric treatment. That was true with the individual who carried out the massacre at the Sandy Hook elementary school, and it was undoubtedly true of many others.

Given enough time and opportunity, the insane and the evil will find ways to turn almost anything into a deadly instrument of mass murder, whether it’s a handgun or a fertilizer bomb or a Boeing airliner. None of that changes the fact that one’s 2nd Amendment rights are not subject to popular vote. None of that changes the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in their wisdom, understood that one might well have need to defend himself, and that police would not always be available to respond in time to prevent a crazy or a villain from doing their absolute worst. At the recent school shooting, this was clearly the case, since by the time the police arrived on scene, the killer had taken his own life, and there was no exchange of gunfire with police. In fact, given the circumstances, the killer could have used ‘slow’ revolvers to equally tragic effect, and nothing about the outcome would have changed.

The purpose of our 2nd Amendment is to afford you the possibility of repelling attackers, and dealing with insane and evil people who prey upon their fellow man. They understood that there would always be good cause for self-defense, and given their recent experiences, they also understood all too well that some times, the evil and the crazy act from behind the shield of official power. One would think that somebody would eventually consider the death tolls governments have inflicted on their own people over the last century, but somehow this death toll, numbering in the tens or hundreds of millions always manages to escape notice. No other sort of institution has inflicted that sort of carnage whether private or individual, and yet we have some number of people who suffer under the delusion that governments are to be trusted as the sole armed defender in a given society. I saw an interesting image on Twitter Saturday being re-tweeted around and what it said was that “a movie about a society in which only police and military are armed has been made,” and when you click into the picture, you see a scene of execution and the title of the movie: Schindler’s List.

If this doesn’t make plain the truth of the matter, I don’t think you’re willing to be convinced of the truth. Some people choose ignorance because it’s more comforting than actual knowledge, or because it permits them to take up the support of evil while pretending not to have known better. Either way, readers should understand that there can be no rational argument for stripping the hundreds of millions of guns from the American people for the purposes of crime prevention. The truth is that guns are simply an instrument like any other, and as long as there is man, there will be senseless violent murders, whether guns are available or not. The only thing achieved by banning firearms is to leave millions of Americans virtually defenseless, and that’s immoral. Instead of going after the crazies, the politicians are using this as an opportunity to go after the rights of law-abiding citizens, and for all the reasons you can already guess, you have every reason and right to resist it. Ignorance should no longer be an excuse. Those who advocate the banning of firearms are simply damning many more innocent Americans to deaths from which they might have protected themselves. So much then for “good intentions.”

In a speaking engagement that looked suspiciously like a campaign stump speech, on Wednesday, Barack Obama implied that if Republicans attempted to tie the debt ceiling to the budgetary negotiations, he might ignore them, stating “We’re not going to play that game.” All along, Obama has shown a willingness to exceed his constitutional authority. Since the Debt Ceiling debacle of 2011, there’s word circulating in leftist circles that under the 14th Amendment, there is some authority for the President to ignore Congress in order to satisfy the payment of our debts, but no such authority exists in the 14th Amendment. This is a troubling proposition, and the fact that our Prevaricator-in-Chief now makes these kinds of implications portends potentially lethal danger to our republic. Obama has made little secret of the fact that he detests the prohibitions on excessive government authority in the US Constitution, but ladies and gentlemen, if he hasn’t gone too far already, this should be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back.

To help you understand what this ludicrous, malevolent narcissist has in mind, let’s first view his speech to the Business Roundtable on Wednesday. The most interesting remarks come after the 13:00 mark, but the whole of the speech offers insight into the maniacal thinking of this man. He is going to destroy this economy to exact his revenge, and none should be in the mood to let John Boehner make deals with this sort of mindset:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPLufmf50sg]

As to the proposition that the 14th Amendment provides some authority for the President to circumvent Congress, this is a preposterous claim. The relevant sections of the Fourteenth Amendment states:

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article

Notice that section 4 was intended to deal specifically with war debt accrued by the Union in fighting against the confederacy during the civil war. The leftists who advocate on behalf of section 4 as a proscription against a debt ceiling are lunatics. It not only requires the setting aside of the context of the amendment, but also ignoring the subsequent section, that specifically empowers Congress to enact legislation pursuant to this amendment.

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;

Notice that all of these powers that are in fact granted to Congress in financial and fiscal matters fall within the context of the following statement, concluding Section 8:

;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

There is no mention of a Presidential role in this process, apart from his ordinary Article II authority to veto or approve legislation. Nothing in Article II provides the President authority to coin money, borrow money, or appropriate funds. No imaginary, tortured rationalizations of the 14th Amendment permit him to touch this apart from signing or vetoing legislation that comes before him. If he attempts what the leftists are suggesting, he is in open violation of the constitution, and this must be confronted.

Naturally, given the track record of Barack Obama, there’s little to suggest that he wouldn’t merely claim the authority, act on such basis, and then simply let Congress try to stop him in court. This would essentially create a window in which we would be reliant upon John Boehner and the Republicans to stop him, but the tepid leadership we’ve seen to date suggests they would present no obstacle to this imperial president.

My friends, there is nothing so dangerous as a demagogue acting as chief of state, and his inclinations toward dictatorial actions provide plenty of cause for concern. Not only must we rid ourselves of John Boehner, but we must also be willing to make a stand against this president in the name of the constitution. Our nation is dying a slow death, but rather than acting responsibly, Barack Obama is rushing to be the first man to throw a shovel-full of dirt on its grave. John Boehner is weak and tepid, a pallbearer to our premature national funeral, and he seems more concerned with his own political survival. We are in deep trouble, but we must stand on behalf of our constitution, or risk losing it.

It’s as though it were a written script. All the players are carrying out their performance with practiced expertise. Given our past experiences with the leadership of both parties, one might guess that the outcome of the “fiscal cliff” crisis had been preordained. It’s beginning to nauseate me to watch this same old crowd play the same old game without any hesitation. Those of us who’ve watched these sorts of situations in the past have come to expect this sort of performance, as exemplified most recently the Debt Ceiling Deal of August 2011. All of the actors know their lines, and the end of the plot will go as planned, while they throw in some plot twist for your entertainment. As it seems we’re to be the endless butt of the insiders’ jokes, we might just as well prepare ourselves to be disappointed once again. These people aren’t serious, and the leadership on the Republican side is downright hostile to conservatives, so we shouldn’t be surprised if they’re readying themselves to put another one over on us. One can almost imagine the script, knowing the deal’s final composition has been determined already:

Boehner: “We’ll need to pass our own plan first, to blunt criticism from the knuckle-draggers.”

Obama: “I know, and I’m going to need to let Harry do most of my talking. Now John, just don’t be too rough on me in the press. Throw in some of those tears-it drives your base berserk! We’re still on for a round after the inaugural, right?”

McConnell: “I’ll let it leak to the press that I laughed at your offer.”

Reid: “Perfect! I’ll come out and say that the Republicans want to starve children and feed the rich their supper.”

Boehner: “Come on Harry, do you always have to lay it on so thick?”

Pelosi: “I just want to know if you’ll let me hold that gavel for a couple more years in 2013. We got rid of that dreadful Allen West, didn’t we?”

Biden: “Hey Barry, can I sit at the Resolute Desk while you’re in Hawaii? It’ll help me build my image for 2016.”

(Joint laughter.)

Obama: “Okay, John, let’s go with your plan. You make the tough stance to get your folks aboard, but don’t blow it this time. They need to believe you gave it your all before caving. The tears will help.”

Boehner: “Yessir, this ship is going down, and there’s no sense in getting people unnecessarily riled up. Let’s keep them busy with the deck-chairs, and when it all goes, they’ll never know what hit them. Permit me to say, Mr. President, that you’ve been masterful this year.”

Obama: “Okay, we know what we have to do. We’ll say we did all we could. Questions?”

Boehner: “How long until we pull the plug? Do we go all the way this time, ’cause I’d like to get sauced on New Year’s Eve.”

Ladies and gentlemen, that queasy feeling in the pits of your stomachs can be explained not as some sort of premonition, but perhaps a little more like Déjà vu. If it seems as though we’ve been here before, it’s only because we have, but in this case, even the names haven’t changed, because there are so damnably few innocents. For those who may have forgotten how conservatives were betrayed in 2011, during the extended Debt Ceiling debacle, let me remind you that Speaker Boehner watched the House pass “Cut, Cap & Balance” knowing it would be killed in the Senate where he had already worked out the framework of a deal with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Barack Obama. In short, while we were prodding our members to stand fast, he had already pulled the rug from beneath us, and as was disclosed during the aftermath, it was done at the urging of Mitt Romney because he didn’t want to have this fight impinging on what he assumed would be his Presidential campaign, a strategy history now proves had been a failure. At the time the deal was struck in July of 2011, I along with many other conservatives urged the Congress to stand fast, because we knew that this was an election issue any Republican nominee ought not give away.

The truth seems to be that there is never a “good time” to do the hard things in Washington DC. There’s always another election “right around the corner,” and there’s always another excuse to kick the can down the road a bit more. Rational people will have known that there’s really no time like the present to take up these issues, and if the House of representatives won’t exercise the power we’ve given it, there’s not much point in having this collection of perpetual losers on the payroll. If Boehner and his bunch aren’t up to the fight, either due to coziness with Democrats in the DC establishment, or merely as a result of cowardly political calculations, we must at long last send them home.

The so-called “fiscal cliff” and any sequestration is really a small divot compared to the disaster looming with more unbridled spending. Republicans complain that the media complex will blame them, and it most assuredly will, but it will also blame them if they go along and the economy flat-lines as the result of tax increases on the productive segments of our economy. It’s long past time to simply acknowledge that the media is going to blame Republicans, right, wrong, or indifferent, and there’s no point in wasting time with all of this whinging about the state of the media. The media is what it is. It’s awful. Life’s hard. Get helmets.

Unfortunately, we don’t have any leaders currently serving in Washington who are willing to stand up and make a case. Instead, they’re looking to cut deals, any sort of compromise at all, and they’re willing to poke you in the eye while they reach for your wallets [again.] Whether things are quite so collegial as my imagined exchange above, the fact remains that when all is said and done, more will have been said than done [again.]

This is the way things are(or aren’t) done in Washington. As you sip your coffee, watching the Sunday shows, know that somewhere behind the scenes, Boehner and the boys are cooking up another sell-out, and the script is already written. As your country, your children, and the prospects of both are being bankrupted, you don’t need to wonder whether disaster can be averted. It won’t be. Our leaders will cut a deal that will permit them to carry on the charade a little longer, purchasing only one more installment of delay for the coming disaster borne by their inaction.

Note: The site had been experiencing some difficulties with the comment system. I now believe it to be repaired. Thank you for your patience.

I’ve listened to this mewling bunch of whiners tell us they’re “one-half of one-third” until I can stand it no longer. It’s true that Obama was re-elected, and it’s true that Harry Reid still runs the Senate, but it’s also true that Republicans still control the House, and it’s about damned time they begin to behave like it. All, I repeat ALL, spending and taxing measures must originate in the House. This is no time for tears, and no situation for surrender. If we are to hold off these statist loons, we must begin now, and we must begin here, at the cliff’s edge. These slack-jawed losers-in-waiting had better understand reality, if they can see it through all of those tears: You were sent to Congress to STOP OBAMA, and I’m sick and tired of Republicans who have all the spine of overcooked spaghetti, and who will not live up to THEIR mandate. I’m not one to cast unnecessary or pointless profanity into the public sphere, but you squishy whiners in the House had better get your acts together. I have one message for House Republicans: SACK UP or GET OUT!

If you’re not willing to do the work you were elected to do, I expect you to tender your resignations now. Conservatives no longer wish to listen to the excuses. If you surrender on taxes to make a deal with Herr Obama, you will be blamed when the economy goes into recession. If you refuse, and he plunges us over this so-called “fiscal cliff,” you’ll be blamed. So be it. You’re going to be blamed either way, so you might just as well summon the testicular fortitude to do what is right and stand on a principle. My apologies to the ladies in the House Republican Caucus, but I think some of you are more capable of leading, and you’ll need to do so, because you’re surrounded by Republican eunuchs. They haven’t the equipment or the gumption to do what is needed, but a few among your number have.

You people have let this thug-in-chief control the narrative for far too long. While he and his henchmen have castigated Republicans for the alleged “war on women,” he’s been conducting a real war on America. It’s time you say so. While you permit him to get away with alleging that all of your opposition owes only to his race, you’ve let his party machine toss out one of your number who happened to be an African-American, and it’s not coincidental that none of you seem all too unhappy about it, because he dared to oppose some of your deal-making.

Back in 2011, as your so-called “speaker” was making deals with Harry and Barry behind closed doors, selling-out both principle and country, you sat on your hands and made no fuss as this entire debacle was shoved down your throats. You took it. You let it happen. You went along with it. Now, some sixteen months later, you’re surprised to find Obama still controlling the situation? If you rest on your laurels, as you did throughout the campaign season of 2012, what did you think would be the likely result? Your short-sighted deal-making of July 2011 has set this stage, and you’re to be held responsible for it.

Now the president intends to run the table on you, and your answer is “Let’s make a deal?” DEAL??? Let me tell you the real deal, and let’s make it clear: Do you remember in 2006, when you lost the House? 2014 is right around the corner, and if you don’t find your stones for this fight, you might just as well go home. In fact, why wait? If you’re unwilling to make a stand now, why don’t you simply surrender altogether? Why don’t you quit your nifty offices, with all your staff and goodies, and make a run for the border…of your home state?

This is not good enough. It’s not nearly good enough. The “fiscal cliff” is a joke. The monetary cliff is real, and the money-printing must stop, but the only way to do that is for you to put the brakes on it. ALL spending and taxing measures must originate in the House. Simply don’t originate any. Why aren’t you out in front of the White House making a spectacle? Why aren’t you down there marching and yelling? When will you learn that if you don’t have the ball anyway, you might just as well keep it in his court and let him field it? I’ll tell you why: You people have grown too comfortable, and besides, he’ll let your pet earmarks through so long as he can get his agenda into law. It’s time to set all this aside now. Where are your tears for the US Constitution, the destruction of which you are enabling?

Dare this president to spend one nickel without your authorization. Dare him to spend one cent beyond the debt ceiling. Dare him. Where is your courage? Will you stand for nothing? Will you fall for anything? When will you realize that this clown can only make traction when you let him? He is impotent if you take the purse away. Impotent. If he tries, impeach him for high crimes and misdemeanors. There’s simply no other purpose for which you exist in your offices. If you fold, there will be no coming back, and there’s no time to argue about it. If you won’t do what is necessary to preserve this union, then we must replace you. You have compromised your last if you expect to return to office in January 2015.

It’s time for Congressional Republicans to act as though they’re in charge of the House, and if they won’t stand, we must send them home. What is the point in fighting to have a majority that once installed will not fight for the principles on which it was elected to lead? Even now, Obama is trying to incite public support for his legislative tax-and-print agenda, but what is John Boehner doing?

This madness needs to end, but it won’t end until the adults in the room learn to say “no” and stick to it. Who will be the adults? It will need to be we conservatives. We conservatives need to think of this entire situation as an emergency, and as a war, but rather than become despaired at the current situation, we need to think in terms of warfare. That’s how the enemy thinks, and until we realize that it is only the outcry of we conservatives who can make these cowardly Republicans in Congress fetch some resolve, we’re going to be in for a tough time. The country is not nearly so overwhelmed as these election results might indicate if viewed only through the lenses of whining losers. We need to buck-up first, and then we need to hold Congressional Republicans’ feet to the fire, and we need to let them hear us. If we don’t do it, who will? If now is not the time to stand, when shall we?

I realize that the leftist media is happily pursuing former CIA Director and retired General David Petraeus, and I also understand that this is their way of giving Barack Obama cover. This story is designed simply to cover up a cover-up. You will remember that almost every media person asked has said that Petraeus had to go, because the affair left him subject to blackmail and coercion. All those who said that are right. The thing they missed is that such blackmail had already occurred, as we now learn that the Obama administration used the pending disclosure of the affair to force Petraeus to sing the administration’s song on Benghazi. The fact is that the Obama administration is proof-positive of the reason why we must have people of unimpeachable moral character in the highest offices of United States Federal Government. On the opposite end of the blackmail of Petraeus sits a President who actually used blackmail or coercion to gain compliance from Petraeus to help conceal the truth about Benghazi. This is the scandal, and this is the reason Barack Obama must go. I say again: Barack Obama must go.

There can be no doubt that the character of a person who sits at the head of the CIA must be examined. I don’t think there are very many people who would endorse the conduct of David Petraeus. The problem is that as terrible as his actions had been, and as awful as the possibility of his vulnerability to blackmail may have been, the stunning fact remains that the man just re-elected to the presidency actually used that leverage against Petraeus. Can we be blunt? Anybody who uses his power as President to coerce or extort an appointed official in any respect does not belong in the office to which he had been elected. Instead, he belongs in jail.

On Wednesday, Barack Obama held a press conference filled with softball questions during which he said that whomever might decide to “go after” UN Ambassador Rice would have a problem with him. His threat was explicit. I’ve got two words for our illustrious leader: Bugger off. When Obama sent Rice out to all the Sunday shows to spread the administration’s garbage about an anti-Mohammed video as a cause of the attack on the Benghazi installation, she put herself squarely in the spotlight. If Obama wants to absolve Rice of wrong-doing, there is a way he can do so: He can publicly admit that he had given her those instructions, and that he is therefore directly responsible for misleading the American people. If he’s not willing to do that, Rice is fair game. When the Marxist thug finds the testicular fortitude to take responsibility for that, maybe we can then drop Ambassador Rice.

At the same time, we have the pending testimony of David Petraeus, but I would not expect too much dirt to be dumped by Petraeus. You might wonder what could cause Petraeus to bite his tongue at this late date, no longer in the administration, but I will tell you why I now expect the Petraeus testimony to produce nothing of value: They used the affair to keep him quiet, but if he was willing to do that, what other untruths will he speak in testimony if the Justice Department is waving possible charges in his general direction?

Put another way, if Petraeus changes his story at this late date, that will mean an admission that his earlier testimony was false, particularly if his testimony was tainted due to administration coercion. He’s damned if he tells the truth, because he will be subject to prosecution. If he maintains his earlier lies, then the administration can let it go without prosecution. Besides, given the clearances to which Petraeus has access, it is possible that charges may be filed related to the access that Ms. Broadwell may have gained by virtue of her relationship with Petraeus. All of this means he’s likely to keep his lips stapled shut and claim the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination. At this point, for him, it is much easier and safer to maintain a lie or say nothing than to tell the truth or make any disclosures. He may be spitting mad and vengeful with respect to the Obama administration, but chances are that they have him over a barrel. If there was any chance of him spilling the beans, he’d have wound up “suicided.”

Most media outlets have been distracted by the sex and sleaze aspects of this story, but that’s not the important part of this story except as the means by which to understand how Petraeus we being blackmailed. The critical thing to expose is that Barack Obama and his administration concealed the whole truth from the American people in the run-up to the election. They concocted a narrative that was demonstrably false about Youtube videos that they knew at the time was false. Whether directing the cover-up, or as an adjunct to it, Obama had all the authority in the world necessary to prevent it. Instead, they tried to bury the truth, both about the fact that it had been a planned terrorist attack, as well as the fact that they failed to take any sort of remedial actions once the attack had begun.

Four Americans were slaughtered, and to conceal their inaction, especially through the election, they used all the leverage they held over David Petraeus, and despite what some may think, through the prosecution powers implicit in the Department of Justice, they still hold him over a barrel. We need more than some dog-and-pony show investigation. This President misled the American people, and he should be considered to have suborned perjury if he instructed Petraeus to lie to Congress, which almost certainly occurred on September 13th. The media is complicit, because they’ve helped to cover this mess for Obama, and they aren’t apt to tell us much because they’d be admitting their own dishonesty. That shouldn’t stop us from demanding answers, because it’s our country. Enough of the Petraeus sideshow, as it’s long past time we move on to the main event, in which Barack Obama is the rightful star of the show.

In what can only be described as a poke-in-the-eye to President Obama, residents of as many as thirty states have begun to petition the President to let their states peaceably secede from the union. This movement seems to be gaining momentum, and it’s largely in response to the election results of last week. Anger over widespread vote fraud is one of the chief complaints I’ve seen cited as the reason for the desire to split, but I think this simply demonstrates how divided this country has become. Most of the petitions seem to originate from what have been traditionally “red states,” but no state has more petitioners at present than the Lone Star State, Texas, with nearly sixty-thousand signatures already. No response has been forthcoming from the White House on this matter, but at some point, they will be forced to respond in some way. I don’t know that this is anything more than symbolic at this point, but the plain fact that so many Americans are openly talking about secession is certainly amazing. On Foxnews, Monday, the following graphic was run, captured by a Facebook user:

Since this graphic aired on FoxNews, more petitions have been added. The petitions can be viewed on the White House website, here. Maybe we can petition him to resign. What are the chances that he’ll respond favorably? Will he respond like an actual liberal and come down on the side of self-determination? Will he simply ignore it? Will his staff laugh it off? Will his response demonstrate his radical Marxist view by being somewhat more dictatorial?

My bet is that the White House tries to ignore it, and if cornered on it, Carney will laugh it off as just the rantings of nuts.

My son-in-law is getting set for deployment to Afghanistan. His departure is imminent, and while I am proud of the young man’s continuing service to this country, this being his second deployment, I am startled by the manner in which the current administration treats all our soldiers. The truth is that the Obama administration doesn’t even like the military, and except for instances in which they can be used as a campaign prop, they haven’t any regard for the men and women who volunteer to serve this nation. One Obama-friendly group has come out with its proposal for trimming military pay and benefits, and it’s shocking to realize how little regard they have for our service-members based on what they’re advocating. The Center for American Progress, a completely maniacal left-wing cohort of Obama’s, largely funded by George Soros, has actually suggested that our government should cut the pay and benefits of soldiers dramatically. It’s disgusting. It’s despicable. It’s another example of how the left doesn’t understand or appreciate our military men and women, but if Obama is re-elected, it’s probably the blueprint for what will happen. It’s time to consider the disastrous consequences of another presidential stand-down.

They’ve actually proposed cutting military retirement, and they’ve also proposed changing the rules for when one can begin drawing a military retirement. Rather than commencing retirement benefits upon retirement, the madcaps at the Center for American Progress are pushing the notion that benefits shouldn’t commence until 60. I want those of you who haven’t served in the military to think about this very carefully. If a young man or woman serves twenty years in the military, on average, it’s not like working in the civilian world for two decades. The abuses of one’s body, the toll it takes on one’s family, and the miserable conditions under which two decades of life are conducted is something for which there are no direct analogs in the civilian world. One person I know, a police officer, who works hard and is dedicated to public safety, likened his profession to the military, and I stopped and corrected him. There is a vast difference, and it comes down to this: Our service-members live under martial authority. It’s not like being a cop, much as I respect so many in that profession.

Let’s be blunt about it: If you are a police officer, and you arrive at a scene, and your Sergeant or Lieutenant tells you to carry out some ludicrous order that puts you in danger, you can refuse. The worst thing that can happen to you is that you will be fired. In garrison, or on the battlefield, a soldier really has no such discretion, because failing to follow orders can get you dead. You see, in the military, there really isn’t room for such discretion, and those who volunteer to serve have set aside the ordinary right to refuse all of us in the civilian world enjoy, in favor of the mission set forth by their commanders, but since they do not get to pick the term of their enlistments according to who is in command at the time, either nationally or locally, they simply must comply.

To get capable, smart, qualified people to do the jobs we ask our service-members to do in peacetime at their miserable rate of pay is hard enough, but multiplied and magnified by the rigors of war-fighting, and a simple existence under martial authority, we need to offer an enticement. That’s why we offer at least somewhat enticing retirement benefits, but this is also why the left, despite all their previous anti-draft protesting, is very much pro-conscription: They wish to be able to force people to serve in these conditions. Imposing the pay and benefits cuts that CAP proposes would assure that the United States would either impose a draft to fulfill its defense needs, or simply cease to defend the nation. Either is acceptable to leftists, but in truth, they’d like to have both.

Remember, if a young person 17-21 volunteers for military service, assuming they carry out a twenty year career, that means they will return to the civilian world in their late thirties or early forties, and despite the propaganda to the contrary, most will be effectively starting over. You see, very few specialties in the military actually translate directly to civilian uses. Working on artillery pieces doesn’t really translate to working on Fords. Some of the underlying skill-sets may, but the truth is that it’s not a simple transition in most cases. There aren’t really many positions for infantrymen in the civilian world. Therefore, you have a group of people transitioning into a civilian workforce who may well have delayed their higher education, and otherwise set aside those developments in order to protect us. Then, having completed two decades, they exit the military into a civilian workforce where they may be at significant disadvantage. There is discrimination against veterans in many cases, and they step into this world precisely in what ought to have been their peak earning years. The Center for American Progress thinks we should delay their retirement benefits until they’re sixty. The truth is, we should pay them upon retirement because it’s the ethical thing to do in helping them catch up, and in order to thank them for their honorable service.

I’m not going to touch the part about active military pay, lest I launch into a stream of profanities over CAP’s proposals, but I think it’s time we understand, all of us, that when we ask young men and women to serve, we’re asking that they do so in our stead. How much is that worth? As my son-in-law prepares to fly to a distant and God-forsaken land, to help a people who may not want it, and to defend them against their own, knowing that most deaths in that country are the result of our alleged allies turning on our people, I can’t help but reflect on my own military service, and all the things I saw. I wonder if the day will ever come when the American people will universally understand what it is we ask of these young people, and whether there will ever be a time when the left is willing to pay the costs of maintaining the defenses of the liberties they so blissfully enjoy in brutally indifferent ignorance. If Barack Obama is re-elected, the undue suffering of our men and women in uniform will increase dramatically. As I prepare to see my son-in-law depart on another deployment, we must take care of affairs here at home. We must prevent this.

In our constitutional system, the Congress writes the laws, and the Chief Executive carries them into execution. The President is permitted to write rules that will lay out the method in which the law is enforced, but his power to write executive orders is not intended to permit him to bypass or ignore laws, never mind write his own. This week, the Obama administration issued a new set of rules including the ability to issue waivers for work requirements to states overseeing the federal TANF program (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.) This provision of the 1996 “Welfare Reform,” passed by a Gingrich-led Republican Congress, and signed into law by Bill Clinton, requires recipients to actively seek employment, and further their education in order to receive the funds. Nowhere in the law is there a provision permitting the President to create waivers to these requirements, and yet, this is precisely what our fearless dictator has done. Barack Obama’s lawlessness is speeding the final collapse of this nation, and he’s happily pursuing this end. It’s long past the time in which we should recognize that this had been his goal all along. The question politicians pretend not to have heard is “What shall we do about it?”

What may be understood from all of this are two basic things. First, welfare reform is being destroyed by the stroke of a pen in the executive mansion. This is not the President’s rightful role in any case. Obama has turned the office of the President into the office of Dear Leader, or Fuhrer, and there is no escaping the meaning of his grasping of more power. Second, this President’s intentions must be clear to any who view it with clarity. He does not intend anything good for our country, and his willingness to seize power in this fashion merely makes plain the fact that he is out of control, and ignoring all of the boundaries established by the US Constitution. He is intentionally leading us into a disaster, in part to buy votes, but also in part because he wants the disaster. Meanwhile, our Congress is writing letters to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to complain.

We have a branch of government that is in open insurrection against the Constitution, and our Congress is writing letters in response. I know that many of you will argue that the Republican majority is only “one-half of one-third” of the government, but how many continuing resolutions to fund this monstrosity will they pass to fund all of this? It’s the only thing they can do, apart from an impeachment vote, that will mean nothing when the Senate fails to act. The only thing Congress can do is to deny funding. There are some who argue the dictator will find a way around that, too, but if he does, that will be open insurrection against the Constitution, not on some small policy matter, but on the very foundations of our system of government. One would think people might notice.

This is the evidence of how bad it has become in the government. We now have a President who rules outside the confines of the Constitution with complete impunity. I can understand why so many conservatives would rush to support Mitt Romney, in desperation to put an end to this lawless administration. I do understand it, and I tell you that I hold no ill will to those who choose this course. The problem is that I don’t know if they will get their votes’ worth out of the Romney administration. You may ask why, and it’s important to understand what’s really going on here, and what are the stakes. After all, the better question may be simply: “What can we do about it?”

In acting out of all bounds of his constitutional limits, President Obama isn’t merely violating his oath by negligence or sloth, but is instead willfully committing treason against the United States. His actions are the pinnacle of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” There exists no shortage of witnesses against him, and his entire administration, all who have sworn oaths, and all who carry out this plot against the constitution are likewise clearly acting in support of treason. I do not use that word lightly, precisely as one must not use the word “racism” lightly. Words of this sort lose all meaning when overused. More, I mean “treason” in its precise legal meaning. Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

Barack Obama’s lawless conduct well outside the constitutional limitations of his office are acts of war against the United States. Here’s the problem, and I want you to consider it: IF you succeed in flipping the Senate, and IF you succeed in putting Mush Romney in the White House, who is going to prosecute the case against Barack Obama? Nobody. Nobody is going to use the law to prosecute the criminal usurpations of this President, but that is precisely what ought to happen. The entire cabal of leftists who have been ravaging this country for the past four years(at least) is going to walk away, and worse, agitate against undoing their treason. What should happen (but won’t,) is that every officer of the Obama administration should be brought up on charges of Treason, abetting Treason, and levying and waging war against the United States Constitution. They should be held at Guantanamo Bay pending trial.

None of that will happen. Why? If the Republicans take over the executive branch, as well as the entire Congress, it is likely that business-as-usual will resume. Those who voted for them will shrug, and say “well, at least that nightmare is over.” What I’m warning you now is that even were this to happen, the nightmare will not end. It will not end until we begin to punish politicians who act to subvert our constitution, not merely by sending them home, but by incarcerating, trying and sentencing them accordingly. When these politicians take an oath to uphold our Constitution, what does that oath mean if when they violate it, they are permitted to walk away?

Ladies and gentlemen, there is a good reason you are not murderers, rapists, and thieves. You expect that even if you were inclined to commit such trespasses against your neighbors, justice would pursue you and you would be held to pay the price for your crimes. This is what has been missing from our nation for too many years. We do not punish politicians who exceed their power. Sure, we throw some in jail for crooked dealings, but what we haven’t done is to jail them when they act out of malice toward our constitutional system. If you want to re-write the ending of this drama, that must change. We cannot permit our constitution to be attacked in this manner without answer. Justice demands it. There are those who will argue that we must not criminalize policy, but this isn’t about the specific policies so much as adherence to the supreme law of the land, or the conspiracy to subvert it. It has been observed that our constitution is not a suicide pact, but we have too many politicians too thoroughly inclined to let every treason pass unanswered in the name of politics. One can only wonder at their motives.

Over the last week, we have been regaled with the notions of respect that Democrats have for women, and the love and compassion liberals always show them, while simultaneously being told that those mean old white guys in the GOP simply don’t understand women, their issues, or why misogyny of the sort they allege Rush Limbaugh displayed ought to be considered a generalization about all conservatives. Of course, while offering all of this, they conveniently ignore a few things that might be relevant to this argument. For one thing, they ignore all the leftist men who have done much more horrendous things to women in recent memory. For another, it’s clear that despite all their posturing, the independence of women is not their actual concern.

Do we hear about how Anthony Weiner treated women on Twitter or his own wife? No. Do we here about John Edwards and how he treated both his wife and his mistress? No. Do they mention Bill Maher’s disgusting remarks about Sarah Palin? No. Do they bother to say a word about how Bill Clinton treated a long line of women? No. Do they say anything in defense of the women abused by leftist men in ways far worse than anything Rush Limbaugh ever said? Hell no. Teddy Kennedy? No way. Chris Dodd? Not a chance. Worse, when any of these liberal men came under fire, the general theme was to attack the women and question their credibility, and attack their character, in a bid to portray them as “gold-diggers” or, yes, “sluts.” Where were the “slut-walks” in protest of all of this, then?

What you quickly realize when evaluating all of this is that while Rush Limbaugh seems genuinely sorry about his remarks, his remorse is frankly unmatched by the others mentioned above. More, it’s astonishing how few feminist activists went after any of those mentioned above, but who can’t wait to slam Rush Limbaugh. There is one reason for this disparity in treatment, and the answer is as plain as the nose on your face: It’s all about politics. These feminists who drop their professed principles when it is a liberal man involved are simply guilty of renting themselves out for the sake of ideological brothers. There’s a name for that, but at the moment, it escapes me…

You see, the problem is that these alleged proponents of the rights of women quickly forget all of that when they think the source from which their bread is buttered may be under threat. At that point, all of their haughty talk about their ideals and their principles most frequently goes out the window. What you realize is that they’re really all about one thing, and nothing more: Abortion. Anthony Weiner, and Bill Clinton, as well as Bill Maher, are rabidly pro-abortion. Rush Limbaugh has two strikes against him, and they are that he is conservative, and he is pro-life. This makes him a target for them from the outset, and his pro-life views have always made him a target.

Limbaugh has long poked the feminist front, casting out terms like “femi-nazi” to describe the most virulent of the post-modern feminist movement. He’s right about them, too, and that’s the reason he’s been the object of their scorn since he first took to the airwaves. They monitor him closely for any indication that they will have a new excuse to renew the vigor of their war against him. The truth is that Limbaugh has a good deal of fun at the radical feminists’ expense, and truth be told, I think that’s what he set out to do in this case. Clearly, he didn’t think it through, and said two words that have begotten all of his current troubles.

Now comes the story that Bill Maher has effectively donated one million dollars to an Obama SuperPAC. This is the same sick man who flung the “t-word” at Sarah Palin. Shouldn’t Obama urge the SuperPAC to return the funds, not wanting to take cash from a misogynist like Maher? Of course, this dual standard is evident most of the time. Occasionally, as in Maher’s case, the National Organization for Women will make some token statement about the leftist, but that’s where it generally ends. There are no boycotts, and no demands to get the offender off the air, or any of those things, and let’s be honest: The things Maher has said about some women make anything Limbaugh said seem quite tame by comparison.

The left claims to care about women and their issues, but the truth of the matter is that rather than seek independence for women, what the radical left seeks is to simply change upon whom it is that some women are dependent. They seek to make government into a sugar-daddy for dependency, as a way to usher more women into the hands of socialism. This is part of the left’s desire to re-order society in their Utopian vision, where women will be reduced to walking bearers of babies who will then become the next generation of worker-bees in the hive that is their model society. As they posture in false bravado on behalf of Sandra Fluke, let’s not forget what these people really seek and who it is that they will ultimately harm most deeply if they have their way, and it’s not men.

This has been the trend since the end of the 1990s, when “welfare reform” was enacted by a Republican Congress and President Bill Clinton. Rather than remaining stuck in a system that pays in commodities and benefits, more and more people have been moved into a permanent welfare class defined by disabilities. Some are legitimate disabilities, of course, but as I suspected then, much of it is trumped-up nonsense. One of the biggest has been the growth among psychological disabilities, with vast numbers of people receiving benefits on the claim of ADD/ADHD. This has created whole families who receive monthly stipends, each, as individuals, and a whole cottage industry of attorneys specializing in winning these claims has come into being.

According to one Fox News report, the number has ballooned even more in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008. In fact, according to the source article in the New York Post, many people are applying for disability just as their unemployment benefits are running out. This is simply another case of people seeing the public trough, and figuring out ways to get access to it. Sure, there are certainly disabled people, but the numbers now applying for benefits as permanently disabled people defies credulity. This has become the new permanent welfare subsidy, and most of the people who now receive it are able-bodied, but claim disabled minds. If you wonder how the Obama administration is managing to bring down unemployment, this is part of the formula. As people’s claims to the Social Security administration are approved, they drop off the roles of jobless, thus rigging the numbers a bit more in favor of the Obama administration. All the while, disability claims have hit a record $200billion, as of January.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but I’ll gladly tell you mine: I’ve said since the early 1990s that had I been born three decades later, I’d have been diagnosed with ADD/ADHD and pumped full of Ritalin, if my parents would have been gullible enough to fall for it. Most of the kids diagnosed as such are just normal kids who need a little stern discipline, and while there will be those of you who will argue I am a Neanderthal for the suggestion, I’ve seen this up close, and I know what nonsense lies behind most of it. Now, that diagnosis is being carried over into adulthood, and adults are likewise being newly diagnosed with these dread afflictions of the psyche.

Let me tell you the truth: Most of the people thus diagnosed as adults actually suffer a different affliction, and it’s called “Needaswiftkickaritis.” In short, they’re children in the bodies of adults who are avoiding responsibility for the conditions of their lives, and passing on the duty to fund their materials needs to those of you who work. I know a person who is part of this profile, right now, not one mile away, and that’s only because he brags about it. He knows he’s scamming the system, and he’s actually proud of it. Somebody at the SSA actually challenged his claim, I believe denying it, and then he went out and found himself one of the ambulance-chasers who specializes in these matters. Bingo! He won the lottery, and now, at 26 years of age, he will spend his days being fed, clothed, and housed by you because he “won’t hit a lick at a snake,” as goes the central Texas colloquialism.

This is one more instance where a big government program has been taken from its early intended purpose to something it was never intended to do, and we wonder why we’re going broke? Where I work, we’ve even had people who came in, applied, went through our extensive training program, and then as they should commence work, announced that they would not be working for us after all, because their claims of disability have been approved. Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot permit this sort of thing to go on. When we reformed welfare in 1996, we failed to reform other programs to close loopholes that were even then being habitually abused. Many of those who went off the welfare rolls in the intervening period have merely found another teat on the giant sow of government at which to nurse. It’s time we wean some of these piglets, as they’re now milking the sow to death, and us with her.

“What can one do?” Clearly, that list is far more extensive than the more important one: “What should one do?” I can this moment walk into my kitchen, find a fork, and jam it into my forehead. I can do all sorts or self-destructive things, but the question isn’t a matter of what I can do, but instead what I should do. Knowing this difference is something we hope to teach to our children with enough clarity and just enough severity that they understand the distinction. It is a lesson far too many seem to forgo on their passage from childhood into adulthood. More often than not, those who do so become annoyed when you point it out. They say in childishly obstinate petulance that “it’s my life(or my body) and I can do what I want.” My question for those who hold this view of life is ever: If nobody doubts that you can do a thing, why do you hold no doubts about whether you should do it? This question is at the root of a deep cultural divide, and it thoroughly explains the collapse of our country.

Governments can do almost anything at all, particularly with the popular support of their people. Does this mean a government should do anything at all? It is not inconceivable that one could form a majority coalition that would demand that we eat the rich. Literally. We can do that, but the question remains: Should we? We could create any number of similar political majorities that would propose equally obnoxious ideas, and seek to implement them in law. Should we? Great disasters in human death tolls made by other men have been carried out on the basis of the idea that since a thing can be accomplished, that it necessarily should be done, but the truth is that ‘should’ doesn’t necessarily follow ‘can.’

Our constitution laid out fairly well-defined parameters for what government can do, but more importantly, our framers laid out well-debated conclusions about what our government should do. Their example was seen in the first few administrations, during which time government did do very little. Over time, this tendency to forget “should” and begin implementing “can” eventually gave us a government that is doing almost all it conceivably can, but does very poorly at the few things it should. Defense? Obama is slashing that, including our critical nuclear deterrence capacity. Law enforcement? That’s not something on which he spends a great deal of effort, although regulatory enforcement is now off the hook, with federal inspectors actually looking through pre-schoolers’ lunch bags.

The litany of things government can do is exhausting, and in fact, virtually infinite. Governments can compel people to buy health insurance, or pay for their neighbors’ lunches, or almost anything you can imagine. The things governments will do is supposed to be restrained, however, by the notions of what it should do, because in deciding what it should do, you’re also defining what it should not. That was the point of the founders, and the limited government they designed told us what government should do, and in so framing it, they also made clear what government shouldn’t do. Yes, they took the time to include a few things that government mustn’t do, but under the auspices of expanding what it can do, they’re now ignoring these limits too. The proposition that government can require insurers to provide free contraceptive solutions comes at the expense of a thing government mustn’t do, which is to interfere in the matters of exercise of religion.

This is what you ultimately find when you consider only the question of what government can do, because it no longer pays respects to the limitations formerly provided by the things it should not do, or must not do. “Should” is a matter of some debate, but it is one leftists seek to avoid. If you want simple proof of concept, I ask you only to think back to 2008, when Barack Obama was seeking the office of President, promising hope and change. He spoke at length about the things that he would do as President, and in rallying his mind-numbed disciples, he exhorted them with cries of “Yes, we can!”

In a move that is clearly aimed at lessening the political damage to his administration, but will factually do almost nothing to address the issue, ABCNews is reporting that Barack Obama or some spokesman will reportedly make a statement Friday on an alleged concession to or accommodation of religious organizations on the contraception coverage mandate. The proposed “solution” would mere shift the responsibility under the edict to insurers. All of this is an attempt to satisfy his leftist base, while making it appear that he’s substantially changing his position where the rest of us are concerned. Shifting the object of the edict from religious institutions to their insurance providers is not really making a factual change in the results, but it changes the way it will operate, giving the President political cover.

Ladies and gentlemen, don’t be fooled: Obama still intends to shove this down the throats of people of faith, and the fact that they’re going to put the onus on insurers does nothing to alleviate the concerns. It simply means that religious organizations will have no choice except to insure people on policies that will have federally-mandated coverage requirements, because what the administration will now do is bully insurers instead of religious entities. That’s not a concession, and it’s not an accommodation, and while it may offer a technical out for Obama to claim he hadn’t been oppressing the religious freedoms of Americans, it merely means that he will oppress their religious free exercise indirectly.

The insurance mandate will remain. All that will change is who will be compelled to enforce it. At that point, what you must admit is that Obama is accommodating anything, but merely shifting the means by which his goal will be obtained. This is the typical leftist approach: When caught with your hand in the cookie jar, quickly withdraw it, while merely reaching with the other hand into the same jar, hoping you will not notice. Expect the media to portray this as “Obama caves,” but that’s a lie. He isn’t caving. He isn’t changing his objective. He still intends to force Catholics, and other Christians to comply with the goal of seeing to it that all contraceptive measures are available to all women through health-care insurance.

Don’t fall for it. It’s a political show, but the net effect is meaningless. He isn’t surrendering the idea of coercing people of faith, but merely trying to convince them that his coercion is aimed at insurers. You can watch Jake Tapper’s report on ABCNews here:

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.1012280&w=425&h=350&fv=]

This isn’t even accommodation. Let’s be honest with ourselves and admit that Obama is still going to shove this down the throats of faith-based organizations, and there is no way around it. This may fool some people into believing that Obama has made an accommodation, but at the end of the day, this still results in a government edict on how money from people of faith will be spent. So he shifted responsibility to the insurers, but this changes nothing about the results. Nothing. Don’t let up. This isn’t Obama surrendering on the issue, but instead merely trying to re-frame the issue to his advantage. It’s still a dictatorial action, no matter how we slice it.

This ad is so devastating to Romney that it’s clear Ann Barnhardt is right: He should just go home now. This ad is powerful, and brutal, and if this ad is seen nation-wide, Romney is absolutely done. The worst part? It’s all true. They use his own words to craft a scathing attack by Mitt Romney on… Mitt Romney. I hate to say it, but the truth is that if Obama uses this ad, 2012 is already over. Do you hear me South Carolina? You wonder why Christie is telling Oprah about being ready in 2016?

Here’s why(H/T Stacy Drake via Twitter):

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9njHHyRI7g]

Turn out the lights. This is epic smack-down. Add to this the whole Tax Return issue, and Mitt’s goose is cooked.

In another bit of misdirected bluster, the Obama administration warned Israel that strikes against targets in Iran could have dire consequences. Israel is increasingly concerned with Iran’s nuclear designs, and it may be considering actions aimed at taking down the threat posed by the potential of Iran being armed with nuclear weapons. According to the Wall Street Journal article, President Obama was on the phone Thursday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an attempt to get Israel to stand down. Obama’s argument is that they want to give sanctions time to work, but they haven’t worked thus far, and while there is talk of tightening those sanctions, Tehran has shown little willingness to budge. This is part of the problem with US foreign policy over the last to decades: We struggle to keep thugs in check while demanding Israel stand down as they absorb attacks from every direction.

That policy prevailed during the 1991 Gulf War, as Saddam Hussein used Scud missiles against Israel in an attempt to provoke a response from Israel that offered the possibility of fracturing the coalition that included many Muslim nations in the region. We moved batteries of Patriot missiles to Israel, and we had our forces scouring Iraq for the launchers, and all the while, President George H.W. Bush kept Secretary of State James Baker in constant contact with the Israelis, trying to keep them from acting in their own defense. Of course, this was a different question, with the Scud missiles being armed with conventional munitions, and the ability of the Patriots to knock some of them down, it helped keep things from getting out of control politically.

This situation involved the development of nuclear arms, and if Iran comes into possession of them, they have promised repeatedly to use them against Israel. Given the small region that is the Jewish state, there’s no way they can absorb even one hit with nuclear weapons without devastating their population. It cannot be permitted to occur, and on this basis, I am certain the Israeli government is considering all sorts of remedies that likely include military strikes against relevant targets in Iran. Last year, the Israelis were in talks with the Saudis in order to secure over-flight permission, should it come to that, and the only reason the Saudis would consider it is that they don’t want a nuclear-armed Iran any more than Israel does, because they could just as easily become a target of the rogue regime in Tehran.

I oppose telling Israel that it must not act in its survival interests. I don’t think there’s any reason to suspect that Iran will come to heel on this matter, and I think the Israelis are right to believe this is a threat the existence of which they dare not suffer. In truth, this is why many on the left wish Israel would simply go away. Many of them have begun to consider it in veiled terms much like the “Jewish problem” described by former tyrannical regimes. In other words, there are those in this administration, and in the general leftist movement of activists who think the world would be so much the better if Israel ceased to exist, and some are quite willing to let the Islamists in the region have their way with the besieged Jewish nation. At this point, I think Netanyahu is facing a serious crisis because the pressure from the White House continues to be what it was more than twenty years ago: “Don’t act. Don’t retaliate. Don’t do anything. We’ll handle this.” The problem is that in three years of Obama’s administration as this crisis has been developing, we haven’t handled it, and the Israelis may well be forced into action. I don’t blame them.

Ladies and gentlemen, this level of borrowing and expenditure cannot be sustained, and I cannot imagine how somebody like Mitt Romney will do anything to change this. He’s a timid politician in most respects, and he has no record of making cuts in issues where there is substantial political difficulty. In fact, the truth is that he’s added to the future liabilities of the state of Massachusetts through his health-care program, that is even now bankrupting that state. In this respect, Romney offers nothing substantially different from what another term of Obama promises to provide: American decline. It’s time to look closely at all of these candidates to see if any have a record of real cuts, because our nation’s future will depend on it.

There are those who will argue it’s hard to take Victoria Jackson seriously after her career as a comic on Saturday Night Live. She’s been taking on more serious subjects for some time now, writing columns for WND, and also taking on the Occupy Wall Street crowd. In this case, she claims that the Muslim Brotherhood is infiltrating the US federal government, and she’s goes to some lengths to make her case. It’s a serious charge, and she goes further, ultimately suggesting that President Obama is tied to all of this. While it’s hard to dispute that Obama’s policies have certainly been favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood, her other claims are somewhat more difficult for most Americans to accept.

In the video below, she’s on PolitiChicks.tv, and she discusses the details of a briefing she attended.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BKYKok9d5g]

It’s hard to deny that the mainstream media has been doing its best to cover up incidents involving Muslims. The ridiculous classification by DoD of the Fort Hood shooting as an act of “workplace violence” comes to mind, and Tuesday’s disclosure about the Christmas day shooting in Grapevine, TX are only two examples of this sort of reporting. With the Obama administration’s actions on the Fort Hood shooting, and its Department of Homeland Security head referring to acts of terrorism as “man-caused disasters,” it’s not hard to understand why some Americans are beginning to ask questions of their government and a media that seems institutionally devoted to covering for radical Muslim terrorists. At the same time, we have the DoD allowing the wearing of the hijab by JROTC cadets, leading some to question what is going on behind the scenes. Still, some will have difficulty accepting at face value what Jackson alleges because of her comedic past, but I think such an out-of-hand dismissal is a mistake. In any event, it’s certain to be a matter of continuing controversy, and you can count on the media to sweep it all under the rug.

Our Department of Defense has lost its mind under the leadership of Barack Obama and his Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta. They are systematically wrecking the United States military, and there’s really only one possible reason for that. Now, due to the complaint of a 14yo Muslim student who wanted to be able to wear her Hijab while parading in uniform, the Defense Department is modifying its policies to permit the wearing of the religious headgear. This is an absurd finding by the DoD, and it threatens the entire purpose of the concept of “uniforms.” Of course, the truth is that the DOD has been encouraging this in Afghanistan, making our female soldiers cover up in accordance with Islamic tradition.

For now, this applies only to the Junior Reserve Officers Training Course(JROTC) cadets, but it’s clear where this is headed. It will not be long before we see US service members permitted to wear the hijab also, and this will be the beginning of the end of the United States military as an effective fighting force.

The whole point of a military uniform is to standardize the clothing of service members. The reason for the standardization is not only for utilitarian purposes, but also for the same reason players on a sports team wear the same uniform: Simple recognition. What do you suppose would cause greater confusion for soldiers on a battlefield in, for instance, Afghanistan, than to permit some to wear the hijab? The other function of a uniform is to have a single standard to which the wearers can repair. Think of it as a dress code taken to the ultimate extreme, by which individuality is forbidden except where it serves a purely military purpose, such as insignia of rank.

With such an allowance made for JROTC cadets, it is only a matter of time before this moves into ROTC, the service academies, and ultimately, our war-fighting forces. There can be no way to preserve military discipline and permit this social engineering to continue. In logic, one cancels out the other, so that if this is to be permitted, there will be no way to effectively preserve military discipline over the long run.

When I served in uniform, it was said that the uniform changes the wearer into one more part of the whole, but by permitting the wearing of the hijab, what is effectively accomplished is to destroy the whole. I strongly condemn this action on the part of the DoD, and I will write my representative about it. This nonsensical approach to military uniform regulations must be stopped. When you sign up, you agree to be bound by regulations, and whether you’re a commissioned officer, an enlistee, or a cadet, that’s simply part of the deal. After all, you’re not there to serve your own purposes and agenda, and you’re not there for your own comfort or the spread of your own ideas.

The Obama administration has long been favorable to the destruction of the US military as a fighting organization able to carry out its duties in defense of this nation. This ruling by the DoD merely extends the question: “Why?” I now believe the answer is simple enough to understand: Reduce the US military to a social experiment until none will enlist or apply at its academies, and make of us a neutered nation, unable to defend itself and its interests around the globe.

In my view, that’s precisely what Obama wants, and nothing else will do.

This is a crying shame, and conservatives ought to be weeping, while Tea Party patriots ought to be throwing a fit. John Boehner has managed to lead the House Republicans directly into the jaws of yet another defeat, and in the end, when he surrendered, he did so because losing is all Boehner really knows how to do. The Republicans in Congress capitulated to Barack Obama and Harry Reid again on the matter of the payroll tax cut extension. House Republicans didn’t learn the lesson of 2006, so a mere five years later, they still think they can conduct themselves as candidates throughout their terms, considering only short-run political expedience. The problem with GOP leaders in the House is that each time they go to the mat, but then subsequently cry uncle, they’re harming themselves and the country. This so-called compromise was nothing but a surrender that merely weakens the Republicans, but more importantly, the country.

John Boehner suffers from an inability to lead. He simply doesn’t understand leadership, or he’s not intellectually vigorous enough to exercise it. Either way, he’s a perpetual loser, and we shouldn’t dare hope he will accomplish anything useful during the term of this Congress. Consider him either intellectually or morally incapacitated, and save yourself some trouble fretting over the endless string of defeats House Republicans will suffer because John Boehner doesn’t know how or isn’t willing to lead.

In this context, leadership would have meant sending his members out to have town hall meetings, and to send them forward to every media outlet on which they could find time, and make the case first to their own core of support, and get their buy-in followed by a more active support. Instead, Boehner sat back and waited for it to happen, and he knew it would, but it’s fair to say he helped engineer this defeat. He’s bent upon the notion of trying to restore order within his caucus, and he’s willing to become minority leader to do so.

This latest flap was more than political circus, but that’s how it has been portrayed, and given the surrender of the Republicans, that’s how history will now record it. The truth is that big issues had been at stake, but due to a little bad press, the Republicans wet their collective diaper and ran home. Boehner will offer that this happened because they’re only “one-half of one-third of the government.” The facts suggest otherwise. Did he try to rally the conservative base? Did he seek out support in such ‘friendly media’ where his own declarations haven’t already poisoned those wells? No. He stayed in the back rooms, smoke-filled no longer, and had his head handed to him on a silver platter. He knew it was coming, and indeed, he invited it.

The first thing he did to invite this had been every previous surrender going at least as far back as the debt ceiling vote, when he actually worked on a backroom deal with Reid to undercut the House bill known as “Cut, Cap, & Balance.” From that moment on, Democrats knew they had a patsy who would do anything to avoid a little negative press. In the end, he and his Republican members must now share in the blame for the credit rating downgrade we suffered as a result. Had he instead remained willing to let everything shut down, he might have forestalled the downgrade, because the rating agency might have concluded at least one party had gotten serious about budget control. Politically, he would have taken a hit in the short run, but the truth of the matter is that Democrats would have relented once their base started screaming loudly, or rioting, because they had not gotten their hand-outs on time. There’s no sense making a stand if you’re going to fold at the first sign that somebody’s calling your bluff.

Democrats read Boehner’s moves as clear telegraphing of a bluff, and they called without blinking. Ever since then, the Obama looks at Boehner and thinks: “There’s my b*t*h.” The tears certainly don’t help with that impression. Since that first monumental cave-in, each subsequent instance has been repeated, only more quickly, each time with with less pressure than the last, as conservative and Tea Party members of the caucus are now demoralized. They see things slipping away, much as they did in 2005-2006, and it’s all for lack of effective, committed leadership.

On this basis, I have written a letter I am sending to my own member, and I want from him a pledge to support somebody other than Boehner and his crew for leadership, whether they maintain the majority in 2012 or not. The way things are going with Boehner, you’d better plan on “not.” As it is, due to his vote on the Debt Ceiling matter, I am already eying potential primary challengers for my own Representative. If he’s going to continue to support the sorry leadership of John Boehner, it’s best to get rid of him, too.

Now, for those of you who weren’t paying attention, let me explain what has happened: The House approved a version of the extension much to the liking of the Senate, and it does not include the Keystone XL pipeline provision, meaning tens of thousands of jobs and a fresh conduit for oil will not be had by Americans any time soon. While you must certainly lay the greater portion of blame on the actions of Obama and Reid, the truth is that Boehner shares in this too.

I realize some will say “but, but, he’s right: Without the Senate, what could he do?” The answer is always the same: Stand on principle. Be willing to take the bad press. Be willing. The problem is that this sort of thing makes its own bad press that goes on long after the terms of surrender were signed. You see, when Boehner plays brinksmanship, but then walks away with nothing, it gives ammo to the opposition that this had only been a political game. This is why the Republicans took a beating from Bill Clinton in 1995: They ultimately flinched first in this game of chicken, making it look for all the world as though they had been merely posturing right along.

Instead, had Boehner rallied every member of the House Republican caucus to stand firm, and held out indefinitely, shutting down government, they could have gone to voters saying: We had to be the responsible party, and we had to put our foot down against irresponsible and reckless spending proclivities of the President and the Senate. The people who would have been angry at them would likely have been people other than who had elected them. If they can’t withstand some bad press now, when will it be better? If they will not stand on principle now, when the country is on the verge of a greater depression, if not in it, when will they find the guts to do it?

The answer: Never. John Boehner and his kind are so consumed by holding onto power, and holding onto office, that they cannot dare to risk it all in order to stand for the principles on which they were elected. One begins to wonder if this is because they’re not hip-deep in all of the crony capitalism and insider trading about which we’ve been hearing, because it’s not as though House members have it so good solely on the basis of their salaries and benefits. One quickly begins to wonder if the monetary inducements to hold office aren’t greater in fact than appears on the surface, because I do not think I could trade my principles for the salary they’re paid. No, there must be something more to it, or these are the most morally corruptible people on the planet.

It’s time we hold them to their promises, and the principles they declare while campaigning. For me, that’s going to entail spelling it out for my own representative. I’d suggest you do the same, but what we had better do is say it, and mean it, lest they get the same idea about us as Democrats now have about them and their lack of spine.

Last month, I reported on the story of Michelle Obama being booed and jeered at the NASCAR season finale. Leftists were aghast, and they couldn’t understand why people would criticize the First Lady. In the end, liberals concluded it is merely because the fans of NASCAR are a bunch of inbred red-necks. Thursday, the Washington Post is reporting that Michelle Obama has taken off for Hawaii on a vacation as the President stays behind to “deal with the spending bill.” This should offer clarity to those leftists who wonder about the reason for the reaction to Michelle Obama last month: The First Lady has taken that unofficial title to heart to the extent that she now conducts herself as royalty. The the rigors of her husband’s office shouldn’t interfere with her vacation plans, after all. It’s this arrogance that promotes the kind of reception she had at the NASCAR event in Florida, and it should come as no surprise to any that she might find herself on the receiving end of some booing.

If the First Lady is going to make these sorts of trips ahead of her husband(she did the same thing over the Labor Day weekend break,) I think she needs to pay more for the benefit. In a recent trip to South Africa, she listed her daughters as “senior staff,” ostensibly to cover the billing for expenses. This sort of thing has led the American people to conclude the Obamas are out of touch in every dimension. As I’ve said previously, it’s clear who are the real “bitter clingers.” As the President does everything he can to constrict the production and use of energy by the American people, he and his wife spend jet-fuel like water. I wonder if Air Force One will be burning the same $16/gallon bio-fuel replacement for JP5 they’ve forced the Navy to purchase in order to pay back a political friend. Somehow, I doubt it. Leftists shouldn’t wonder why Michelle was booed. It’s self-evident.

Politico is reporting the results of a Gallup survey in which it was found that 64% of Americans, essentially the same percentage that opposes Obamacare, believe big government represents the biggest threat to the American people, ahead of corporations(26%) and big labor(8%.) Myself, while I find this encouraging, I think the survey should have added a couple of categories. Myself, I’d have thrown “big media” into the mix. That aside, the thing to learn from this survey is that the American people view government as the problem, and they’re right. This is a near-record level of fears about the size of government, and most astonishing is how many Democrats and Independents now see government as a looming threat.

This may be Barack Obama’s biggest vulnerability in 2012. It’s clear that an overwhelming majority of Americans see big government as the problem, and nobody is more thoroughly big-government than President Obama. Looking closely at the numbers, what becomes clear is that the biggest shift has come among Democrats, who usually see big business as the greater threat. In just the last two years, that has shifted markedly, with a plurality of Democrats now judging government the bigger threat.

Nobody is surprised when a majority of Republicans find big government to pose the most imposing threat of the three categories, but it’s astonishing to see that more Democrats now worry about big government than even about big business. You can bet that over at the White House, these numbers are making some folks cringe. It means that this coming election year, a truly conservative message may well be significantly more popular with voters in general, and this holds out some hope that if Republicans can nominate an actual conservative, they may capture the White House in grand fashion.

I think the writing is on the wall. If the Republicans can get their act together, they have a great opportunity in 2012, because all in all, voters have grown sick of Obama, and are worried about the kind of government he is building. This poll merely buttresses that assessment.

As if we hadn’t already known it, one of Obama’s college cohorts has come forward to say that Barack Obama had indeed been a radical, full-bore communist. While none of this may be particularly surprising to those of us who have paid attention to Obama’s development as a presidential candidate going at least as far back as his 2004 Democrat Convention speech, I suspect the average American may not have the slightest idea just how thoroughly radical their President’s credentials really are. This owes to the media that has covered for him, rather than covering him, both in looking at his history and in examining his friends and associations. Having watched this administration in action for nearly three years, more Americans are realizing something is wrong with President Obama’s view of the country, of values, and of the world in which we live. What John Drew offers is a bit of insight into the nature of Barack Obama’s real beliefs and intentions.

Well, consider the words of John Drew, a man whom writer Paul Kengor calls “Obama’s Missing Link.” A contemporary of Obama’s at Occidental College three decades ago, Drew says that he himself was a Marxist at the time — and part of Obama’s inner circle. And what does he reveal?

Obama was an “ardent” “Marxist-Leninist” who “was in 100 percent, total agreement with [his] Marxist professors,” said Drew.In fact, Drew states that while he was a more nuanced Marxist who tried to convince Obama that old-style communist revolution was unrealistic in the West, the future President would have none of it and considered Drew a “reactionary.”

“Reactionary?” That’s typical Marxist lingo, but as some have offered, he was younger then, and of course he might have been a good deal more radical in his youth than as he matured. What is the evidence that this has been the case? After all, among his first round of appointments were a crowd of Marxists and communists that would have made “Uncle Joe” proud. Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, and Samantha Powers(Sunstein’s wife) come immediately to mind, but there are many more. As Van Jones admitted publicly, you have to “drop the radical pose to achieve the radical ends.”

I’m certain that this bunch of Alinskyite radicals has done precisely that, and Obama most of all. As I explained in examining Obama’s pro-socialism speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, this president believes the left-wing propaganda. One bit of information that has turned up since that speech is that the Weather Underground had its own newspaper back in the 1970s, called Osawatomie. No kidding. If you visit the site where this is detailed, you’ll find that much of the jargon and lingo of Obama’s 2008 campaign and his presidency is repeated here. The point? He’s a true believer, a man committed on principle to destroying the United States as we have known it. The key to understanding this is what Drew actually said about his commitment: He believes an “old-style communist revolution” is a possibility in the US. Consider that statement, and all it implies, and then remember that Bill Ayers was among those who were planning just such a revolution, and as early as the 1970s, were imagining how to kill off the estimated 25 million people who would not peaceably submit.

I submit to you that if it was your intention to have an old-style communist revolution, if you could capture ruling power by any means, you would be able to wreak havoc on any nation, its economy, and its people, and the reason to do so would be to splinter the civil society into warring factions, or to exploit such factions as may already have existed, and magnify them. Any nation is ripe for revolution when its people are sufficiently primed, and dissatisfaction is the best way to prime them. Obama’s policies are surely driving greater dissatisfaction as the prices of food and fuel skyrocket, the value of the dollar plummets, and real unemployment is at greater than 16%, and by some calculations, substantially higher. The nature of statist revolutions requires calamity, catastrophe, and emergencies, under the auspices of which governments extend their control.

“Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of “Emergency”. It was a tactic of Lenin, Hitler and Mussolini… The invasion of New Deal Collectivism was introduced by this same Trojan horse.” – Hoover’s Memoirs: The Great Depression 1929-1941

What Hoover identified is the ultimate methodology upon which collectivist demagogues naturally rely: The emergency. Under emergencies, whether actual or fictional, governments rely upon the extraordinary power to suspend liberties and natural rights, and to otherwise violate laws it is ordinarily sworn to uphold. Barack Obama is setting us up for just such an event. What do you suppose is the purpose of the Occupiers? Their role is to make the American people call upon their government for aid. These poor useful idiots, most of them, are too blind to see that they will be the first people sacrificed in the name of such an emergency.

It’s time to face the full horrors of what Obama’s presidency holds in store. Most of us are accustomed to believing that “it couldn’t happen here,” but the truth is that it is happening here. It’s time we put a stop to it, and defeating Obama in 2012 is just the start.